To not understand why the LV shooter isn't labelled as a terrorist?

[KrayKray00]

Now I might sound rather thick but I cannot understand why the shooter in Las Vegas isn't being called a terrorist.

The definition of a terrorist is

terrorist
ˈtɛrərɪst/Submit
noun
1.
a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
"four commercial aircraft were hijacked by terrorists"
synonyms: bomber, arsonist, incendiary; More
adjective
1.
unlawfully using violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
"a terrorist organization"

Is it because it has not yet been linked to a political agenda? Or is it because he is not a "typical" terrorist?

I see him as a terrorist, what he has done is appalling.

AIBU or have I got it totally wrong?

It's depressing to see these divisive " memes" get traction round the internet. It feels orchestrated but maybe I'm too cynical and it's just ignorance.

Is this going to turn into a White Privilege thread? I hope not.

Hasn't the 'He marched with antifa' thing been shown to be fake news'?

You're going to have to substantiate your claim Eccentric, or I'm going to think you're one of those people who spread fake news on social media.

I was thinking yesterday that maybe we should drop the term terrorist and just call them all mass murderers. Because terrorism is linked to political aims I think it somehow (in the minds of supporters & people who carry out these attacks) legitimises their actions. They feel they are a valid army fighting for a political cause.

Refer to them as mass murderers and criminal gangs, instead of terror cells linked to IS, or any other organisation. Never mention the cause. Of course that doesn't mean that behind the scenes people don't acknowledge these acts are linked or politically motivated, but cut off the publicity.

I'm really interested in this.

It seems like there are loads of different definitions of terrorism. The social science definition seems to focus on violence in pursuit of political aims, but it appears that the legal definition in some places - including Nevada, where these horrific attacks happened - does not require the political element, but allows mass killing to be defined as terrorism. So we have this bizarre situation where it looks like this is legally terrorism in Las Vegas, but is not currently terrorism in the wider, popular understanding (in the absence of motive at this early stage, and bearing in mind that a political motivation may well still emerge, which would bring the two definitions into line).

I'm interested as to whether this is also the case elsewhere in the world, and why the two definitions diverge so greatly. When you start thinking about it, terrorism is a pretty malleable concept. If there are any experts in this area, I'd be really interested to hear views.

Not terriorist as no reason what what he did..no political links. Mentally ill. Thoughts with those effected by this x

Was the shooter politically motivated OP?

If yes he is a terrorist if no he is not a terrorist. Or was rather.

Duh, it's because he's white.
What an lazy argument. Several violent attacks against the Muslim community near mosques have been described as terrorist incidents.

If people think that every mass murderer is a terrorist, why bother with the term "terrorist" or "terrorism"? Those words exist because they have a distinct meaning, and that is the desire to spread terror in further of a political aim.

That's why Harold Shipman, who killed 250 people, isn't a terrorist, but Sean O'Callaghan, an IRA bomber who died earlier this year, was. And it's why the Manchester and London Bridge attackers were also terrorists.

Maud "I don't think it necessarily matters what language is used to describe this atrocious act. The less said about the people who commit these crimes the better."

But the language used to describe acts like this does indeed matter. The media spread terror and hate via the language they use when a Muslim commits this kind of atrocity.
Governments start wars when muslims commit such atrocities. Governments ban people from travel, using atrocities like this.

Governments and media will do very little about this atrocity. Many more Americans have died from guns, but absolutely nothing will be done about it whilst the "Muslims are terrorists" narrative will carry on being perpetuated by the media and governments.

He’s white so doesn’t conform to white Americans view of terrorists

Oh and baker - something was DEFINITELY being orchestrated yesterday.

• There was an early misidentification on 4chan's disgusting /pol/ board of the shooter with the ?former husband of Marilou Danley. The guys name, address, and personal details were plastered all over the internet. He is a liberal, Democrat-voting, American leftie. 4chan, which is basically alt-right, immediately concluded this was an Antifa terrorist attack, and that line was picked up by various murky news sources who have a strong affiliation with Trump and no scruples about publishing lies (and I suspect may be in his pay). I felt desperately sorry for the guy who was basically libelled all over the internet - Twitter was awash with this. Since the guy's location was published, I don't think it's extrapolating too much to say he was put at risk.
• It then became quickly apparent that this man was NOT the guy in police reports - his age and location were wrong. However, even though the rumour about the individual responsible was corrected, the mud about this being a left-wing Antifa attack has stuck and continues to be reported. We don't have ANY evidence, as far as I can tell, of Stephen Paddock's politics right now - so any statements on this are utterly speculative at this point.
• It strikes me that this is a good example of how concerted action by a number of alt-right websites, combined with a repeated and depressing failure by ordinary people to check the strength of the source of information, leads to the global circulation of a really worrying falsehood, a trace of which persists even when its initial ground has been removed (as we can see from this thread). It's like our public discourse is now haunted by the ghosts of falsehoods, which are impossible to exorcise.

Duh, it's because he's white.

JHC

It's got nothing to do with his colour/religion. He appears to have had no political agenda, therefore he is a mass murdering arsehole not a terrorist.

There are plenty of white terrorist nutjobs - baader meinhof/basque separatists/IRA etc. No-one hesitates to use the term terrorist to describe these groups.

Timothy McVeigh is always referred to as a terrorist. He's white & an American. Anders Breivik is a terrorist. They had political motivation.

You can kill one person & be a terrorist, you can kill 40 and be a serial killer/mass murderer.

I guess to many Americans the right to have a gun trumps innocent people loosing their lives. Sad but if it didn't change after Sandy Hook it won't now.

Baker: Unabomber was white I think. The Oklahoma bomber was white and that's referred to as terrorism.

Both these attacks took place in the 1990s (1995) before the obvious bias reporting about muslims being terrorists. So I think your statement is disingenous, as it is not taking into account the direction society has taken since 9/11/2001.

Same with reference to the IRA having white members further upthread. Totally different time. Although, that time could easily be equated with now, with regard to how young Irish men were treated in England during the 1980s.

*What an lazy argument. Several violent attacks against the Muslim community near mosques have been described as terrorist incidents.

See Baker, this is how you dismiss a theory!

Both these attacks took place in the 1990s (1995) before the obvious bias reporting about muslims being terrorists

What bias reporting?

I dont think its because he's white. The ira were rightly labelled terrorists. Its because as of yet there's no political motive.

I dont think its because he's white. The ira were rightly labelled terrorists. Its because as of yet there's no political motive.

But in the news yesterday they reported ISIS have claimed he was radicalised and recruited by them. But the report said they are ‘yet’ to confirm this whTever that means. He should be called a terrorist but I suppose they won’t as he looks likes someone’s nice grandpa.

So far there has been no political, religious or ideological aim behind these senseless killings. Therefore, I don't know how he is a terrorist? He's a mass murderer and a complete bastard

Guilty I followed a bit of that yesterday and it was clear that was a misidentification, that people then deliberately keep that going is awful. There are also many deliberately ridiculous tweets of in jokes in the aftermath that pass for humour.

I'm not disingenuous. I talk about events I remember hearing reported about.

Sorry if I'm a bit old.

thecatfromjapan No, I have better things to do than share any news articles, on social media. People have a news feed of their own, they don't need me to point things out on mine, I'm sure.

And no, I'm not referring to Melbourne Antifa which is quite clearly some anonymous idiot trying to gain momentum against Antifa.

There is a photograph of Stephen Paddock at a march, however I do appreciate photographs can be manipulated.

There's video purporting to be his wife, saying "You're all going to die soon" at an airport too, but again, until it's confirmed I'll keep an open mind.

Although, playing Devil's Advocate, do you think if there was strong evidence to support the fact that he was an anti-Republican anti-Trump member of Antifa, any major news station in the USA would acknowledge that anyway?

Sorry bucket but are you schooling me.

How funny you are.